tv The Dylan Ratigan Show MSNBC July 6, 2010 4:00pm-5:00pm EDT
only certified lobbyist on the passing issue of ufos. the show starts now. the show starts right now. >> in america today, wall street is exacting its own revenge on the democrats by withholding campaign donations. they aren't the only ones fuming at obama. the president is being squeezed from one coast to another. wall street is taking cash elsewhere, arguing democrats are anti business, which is nothing short of hi lalarious. now democrats are saying he's not democratic enough. this is funny considering the big banks made out like bandits. democratic campaign committees have seen financial sector donations drop 65% from two
years ago. the dems get 10% of their cash from wall street down from 1/3 of their cash total last election cycle. this is a boom for republicans, according to a "wall street journal" analysis, showing the gop taking in more than half of big bank cash this year at 12-point reversal over 2009. democrats problems spand far from wall street. the second largest cash source is drawing up as well. san francisco area donors have cut support to dems by more than one-third. progressive donors have told reporters that they're disappointed with the president's performance. so he's lost his friends on wall street, and he's lost other friends from the left. the big question is, who is he going for? will mccain voters flip and vote for obama? not likely. and why not actually get your supporters to vote for you, and maybe donate.
what happens if his base doesn't show up to vote at all? joining us now, from washington, jim kesler, vice president of the policy for the moderate think tank third way. glenn, jim, thanks for being here. glenn, i want to start with you. is obama anti-business? >> no, i think that's an absolute ludicrous joke. if you look at the people with whom he's been meeting over the past year it's overwhelmingly people from industry. he wrote the health care bill with them in toe. they spent a lot of money campaigning for the bill, at least certain segments of industry have. if you look at tim geithner, he's essentially nothing but somebody who has been perceived correctly as a servant to wall street for his entire year. there's elements of this financial reform bill that are good and that wall street dislikes, but overwhelmingly, the administration has been geared towards serving the same
business interests that have run washington for a long time. any regulation would have made them angry. the fact that they're angry doesn't prove it's something other than probusiness. >> if he was going to lose wall street support anyway, and the funds were going to dry up anyway as they did, why not be more aggressive and push for bigger health care reform? >> let's just talk about health care reform. for 80 years we've tried to pass universal health care. it's been a progressive dream. we've not been able to realize it. harry truman couldn't. lyndon johnson couldn't do, carter couldn't do it. clinton couldn't do it. we did it. in terms of progressive, this has been a nearly century old progressive dream, and there may be some aspects of the big the progressers don't like in the details, but this is a huge progressive accomplishment. on wall street, look, the goal
isn't to see whether you can do a progressive bill or a conservative bill or a centerist bill, but a bill that will prevent the type of disaster we just occurred over the past few years and makes sure the united states maintains its position as the world financial market. they thread that needle in this bill. >> did we thread the needle on wall street reform? how about health care? a lot of people in washington agree with jim. mission accomplished. let's hang the banner. why are you being such a pain about this? why don't you recognize the brilliant accomplishments? >> a lot of issues we're not discussing. with regard to health care and financial relation. i don't know if robert gibbs would have the audacity to get up and say this bill will prevent the kind of melt down we experienced two years ago.
the big problem were the banks were too big to fail and therefore we were required to save them, even if we didn't want to, in the event they became insolvent. there's nothing in the bill that solves the too big to fail program. i don't know of anybody who thinks had this bill been in place two years ago that the financial crisis would have been averted. there's huge loopholes in regulates derivatives and all the problems that led to the financial crisis over the last decade are really unresolved fundamentally. >> if you look at the health care reform bill, it's a good thing that millions more people who couldn't afford health care coverage now have subsidies to get them. but the way it was accomplished is the biggest dream for the health insurance industry and medical industry to force private citizens to buy the products of private health care insurers and use it without much
reform and in the market that made the products so bad in the first place. it remains to see how much health care coverage will be expanded, how much premiums will go up as a result of the bill. but certainly we're far from the idea that obama has stood up to special interest. the public option with 60% approval rating. some showed much higher than 60% approval rating. if you're going to get called a socialist, put it in there, make the big stronger so it's more likely to succeed. doesn't that seem like glenn is right? >> i hope we're not going to do every piece of legislation by pulling particular provisions and seeing what gets 60%. we'll be in big trouble. we may as well have the
immigration law. >> if not, why did they take it out of there? >> i think the public option was a minor idea. the insurance industry made it too big of an idea going after it. the cbo said 600 people would be under the poub lick option. we're having this huge fight over peanuts. >> no, we're having the fight over ideas. if you don't have the progressive policy positions, as you see here you lose the left. you don't gain the right. are you worry d about do nations? >> i think there are two ways to win a campaign. one is by appealing to industries who run the country. they massively supported his
campaign. the other is the grass roots. they turned out for young voters and disenfranchised groups. those are groups becoming al yen na alienated. it's the base of the party that the democrats have shone contempt for over the last year and a half. there are good policies. people are disenchanted. the democrats will be making their own bed. it's not a pretty one. >> 53% of the people were self-identified moderates. 7% were self-identified conservatives. 40% were self-identified lib raps. liberals. >> try and win an election with a disenchanted democratic base and see how that works out for you.
>> i'm not sure the moderates are excited to vote now eertd. >> you need two oars to row a boat. >> thanks for being here. we appreciate it. coming up here, the united states of america versus the state of arizona. the feds filing a lawsuit against the most controversial immigration law in the nation. we'll mix it up. plus, can sarah palin save the rnc? conservatives buzzing about the possibility of palin replacing michael steele at the republican national committee. a special pop quiz on the president. who is more conservative? barack obama or ronald reagan? we all have one. that perfect spot. a special place we go to smooth out the ripples of the day. it might be off a dock or on a boat. upstream or in the middle of nowhere. wherever it may be, casting a line in the clear,
we're back to mix it up. the feds square off against arizona. buzz about sarah palin as the next rnc chairwoman and criminal charges. we start with benjamin netanyahu and president obama trying to shore up issues at the white house. the two leaders down playing talk of a rift between israel and the u.s. >> i've trusted prime minister netanyahu sense i've met him before i was elected president, and have said so both publicly and privately. >> the bond between israel and the united states is unbreakable. and i can affirm that to you
today. >> meantime, a new york times report shows tax-exempt donations are sustaining israeli settlements in the west bank as the u.s. tries to end them. at least 40 american groups are collected $200 million in tax deductible gifts for settlements. here's our panel. blogger and columnist for politicsdaily.com. old friend matt lewis. let me start with you, ari. we have news that israel has lifted a large portion of the blockade, but not the whole blockade. is that good news, and is it enough? >> there's a lot of people who will say it's not enough. but clearly today's meeting there's a contrast for the last time you had president netanyahu here. there was access to photographs. they didn't have that last time. part of what we're hearing for the obama administration is because of the blockade and also
with barack and israel meeting with palestinian officials for the first time in four months. some measures are really being taken here. >> how about you, matt? you think the lifting of the blockade, such as it is for the most part, is that a good thing? are you encouraged by that? >> i think it is a good thing. i would encourage the other side to release the israeli soldier who has been held captive in gaza for some time now. it is a good sign. look, this is a very difficult situation. we've seen before these things fall apart. but it's very good for america and the world community to see that america and israel are at least strong allies once again. >> ari, real quick, on the tax exempt money going to the settlements, is that a bad idea? >> i think it's workable. you have a lot of immigrant communities and others who feel immunities. there's a lot of controversy out there. i don't think the key is
worrying about private do nations. >> next, the republicans are attacking the justice department for filing a lawsuit against arizona over the state's controversial immigration law. moments ago senate republican leader mitch mcconnell released a statement saying soon the people of arizona attempting to do a job the federal government has utterly failed to execute will not help secure our borders. it will use preemption over state legislation to make the case that enforcing immigration law is a federal responsibility. quick history lesson. on preemption in 2004, george w. bush officially preempted national banks from state laws regulating mortgage credit. he argued that banks should only be subject to federal credit laws. so, matt, i assume you're in favor of preemption because it worked for george bush and protecting the big banks. you obviously agree, right? >> i have a nuance for you.
initially i was very much opposed to the arizona bill. not so much about preemption, but because of the civil rights, potential for civil rights violation. i think the folks in arizona went back. they did improve the bill. look, i think we can probably agree that the federal government has failed arizona and failed us in terms of securing the border. but can the states essentially enforce this? there's nothing wrong with saying is this constitutional or not. and it could be that arizona, it turns out to be upheld and arizona is fine. i don't see a problem with looking at this in terms of the constitutional question. >> you know, matt. i read your work on this. i thought you had a good column when it came out. i think you're wrong today. the reason why matt is wrong. the question is not weather they've failed, right. you can fail to invade grenada, that doesn't mean arizona picks up where the u.s. military left off.
the argue from conservatives about a policy failure is irrelevant to the legal question of whether the states have the power. that legal question is open, but it's not an issue of if obama is tough enough on the border. it's if the state police forces can do this in the way they're trying to do this. i think the civil rights component is far worse because of the way they're hassling people based on the way they look. >> let me ask you about that, real quick. on the content of the actual law. if they just said, hey, we're not going to stop people based on reasonable suspicious and ask them for papers. if we arrest them we're going to ask ask for papers. isn't that fair? >> that would be a lot fairer. leflt easier to pass that's the thing about this law people have to be careful about. a lot of people care about securing the borders. the problem is the way it discriminated against people. they talk about the way it looks. we don't know how it's going to
be enforced. we haven't seen it enforced yet. that starts july 29th depending on this lawsuit. that was the problem tonight. >> on the preemption issue, since bush did it. if you were president, would you preempt and say this is a federal issue, or would you let all the states write their own laws? >> i think part of the issue that conservatives are making here in essence, the arizona law is consistent with the law, the federal laws on the books, which have not been enforced. ultimately the answer and what i hope happens here is i hope the arizona law becomes a point. i hope the federal government sees this as a sign that they have to start securing the border. i think that's the ultimate answer to the problem. >> on the next issue. an army intelligence analyst accused of leaking the video is now facing criminal charges. private first class bradleymanning is facing 12
counts of illegally providing classified information to an unauthorized source. he unlawfully accessed the gun camera video of an apache gun helicopter attack in 2007 that left zefl iraqi civilians dead. the case bringing new attention to the issue of national security versus the public's right to know. when is it appropriate to leak information to the press. now, ari, you're a member of the press, but can you see the government's issue here? >> right. the military will have a strong argument because of the video footage. this is right in the theater of battle. this is not policy planning. this is not harmless. this video with what they is reportedly thousands of cables present a real security question. but, again, the real question here that when we look at someone leaking like this is,
should the ano, ma'he remain an? there's very fundament questions about how this information was spread, whether people pretending to be journalists were lying. beyond the normal security tradeoffs, there's other big questions here. if this person who served his country didn't set out to hurt anyone, and trying to be a whistle blower, it's really problematic if he's going to be jailed an journalists are lying about being journalists. >> he is a whistle blower. we saw amazing foot j that goes to the content of the war. this is how our information comes out. should we be prosecuting a guy who brought us relevant information that the media should have brought us all along? >> i think so. when you join the military you sign up for something different than just being a citizen. you surrender your rights in many ways when you join the military. it's part of the deal.
it's not up to an individual member of the military to determine which security secrets, which classified information is okay to leak for the public good. their job is to take orders. while i am sympathetic to the whistle blower argument in general, when you sign up for the military, it's a different thing. they're well within they're rights to go after this. >> i know you're intellectually honest. right? >> i try. >> when general mcchrystal and his aides were affiliated tw the leaking of a afghanistan memo months ago, which recently got more attention, if they were found to have done that, would you say they should also go to jail? >> well, look, i think it's a very, very serious thing. if it can be proven they leaked classified information, that is a very serious offense. they should be held accountable
for it. absolutely. >> would the rnc be better off with sarah palin? charge? bloggers are buzzing about palin replacing michael steele. they say the gop desperately needs her. which i find hilarious. it's just the latest in a string of gaps that have many republicans questioning his leadership ability. would they be trading in one clown for another? would you be happier with sarah palin as the head of the rnc? >> i think liberals should worry about sarah palin more than michael steele. >> the difference is michael steele never gets anything. he upsets his base and has everyone else shaking their head. sarah palin does things widely contested. that's a gap agitated for her to
take over. she's polarizing. she does it in a way that's mobilizing. she's unlikely to do this. that would cut into her income. that is her core priority. >> it seemed to us that she left the governor's position because she wasn't making enough money. now she's making sere bank. what leads anybody to believe she would give that up to run the rnc for such little money? >> she wouldn't. it's a trade down in terms of money and prestige. neither she nor michael steele are cut out for the job. it's important to know what you're good good at and what you're bad out. michael steele and sarah palin are charismatic figures that are good at certain things, but the rnc needs someone like haley barbour who doesn't want to be on tv all the time, but who can raise money, pull the strings and get things done.
palin is wrong for the job. >> like if you don't want to be on tv all the time, there's something wrong with you. >> they're not good at speaking. that's gotten them both into trouble. we have to wrap it up here. thanks for making it up today. still ahead on "the dylan ratigan show," government burned by bp again. first, forget the prestige. working at the white house is all about the big payday to follow. before rogaine, my solution to the problem was to go ahead and wear hats. i was always the hat guy. i can't even tell you how much it's changed my life. [ male announcer ] only rogaine is proven to regrow hair in 85% of guys. no more hats.
is the only furniture polish with febreze freshness. so your furniture is "swiffer clean"... and your home is "febreze fresh." [ doorbell rings ] you may never go back to your old furniture polish. ♪ swiffer gis cleaning a fresh new meaning. the real reason people take pay cuts to work at the white house. this weekend the white house returned a list of staff salaries, showing 24 staffers making the maximum allowable $172,000 a year. not bad. but it gets better. among them rahm emanuel, robert gibbs and adviser david axelrod.
the lure isn't the salary, it's the learning potential at your next job. former bush adviser karl rove makes between 25,000 and $45,000 for speaking engagement. not to mention his salary as a paid analyst for fox news. clinton's former chief of staff makes $700,000 in speaking and consulting fees in 2008 alone, before coming back to the government as the head of the cia. then there's a special case of robert reuben, clinton's economic adviser, deregulate the banks. that paved the way for unheard of profits at places like citigroup which paid reuben over $100 million from '99 to 2007. are they more likely to be motivated by the current salary or the much larger one they'll make from the people regulating while they're in the white house? it doesn't take a genius to see what's wrong with the system
here. coming up, obama the conservative. how the current commander in chief stacks up to ronald reagan. you may be surprised what we learn about both men. forget u.s. secrets. this russian spy had her eye on a bigger prize, buckingham pal las. and at least one lobbyist wants everyone to know little competi. - i'm right behind you. - ( coos ) - ...there's a winner... - mmm! - no. - ...and a loser. - ( grunts ) - a runner-up. - ( elevator dings ) second best. the one who fell - a bit short. - yes! thank you! our friends at bmw know exactly how this feels. ( music playing )
my doctor's again ordered me to take aspirin. and i do. i make sure that he does it. [ male announcer ] aspirin is not appropriate for everyone, so be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. [ mike ] i encourage everyone to listen to the doctor. and take it seriously. [ male announcer ] learn more about protecting your heart at iamproheart.com. i believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and have lived here, even though some time back they ma have entered illegally. >> no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable. >> yes, you heard that right. conservative ronald reagan pushing for amnesty for illegal
immigrants while our democratic president calls for a border crack down. the immigration debate one reason the comparisons are abounding now. we're breaking it down. new rankings of the president. historians put our current president at 15th with the gifford ranked 18th. that's going to drive conservatives crazy. we're calling who is more conservative? i'll give you the policy decision. you decide if it was president obama's or president reagan hees? >> which president negotiated with an enemy country without preconditions? president obama or president reagan. president obama is incorrect. though he says he's open to it. >> would you be willing to meet separately during your first year of administration with the leaders of iran, syria,
venezuela, cuba and north korea. >> senator obama? >> i would. >> republican hawk ronald reagan did it in 1985. he appointed the leader of the evil empire for a summit in geneva without preconditions. president reagan's administration was responsible for trading arms for hostages in the iran contra affair. that would be negotiated with terrorists, literally. which president is famous for his decision to cut and run when our troops were attackd this the middle east? yep. president reagan. that was in 1982 after hezbollah murdered 243 u.s. servicemen in b beruit. next the fiscal policy. which president refused to raise taxes for anyone making less than $250,000.
yeah, that would be president obama. on the other hand. president reagan after initially lowering taxes raised them nearly every year after 1981 with four significant tax increases. which president was the first to host an openly gay couple? that would be family values icon, ronald reagan. which president is the real conservative here? joining us is david weigle and frank donatelli. now the chairman of gopac. let me start with you, frank. those sound like interesting comparisons. is there a chance obama is more conservative than reagan? >> i'm glad the msnbc interns had something to do for the last couple of weeks. that's the silliest thing i've ever heard. >> which part is untrue?
>> it's an incomplete and distorted pictures of everything. >> so all of that is true, right? >> it's not all true. >> really? what's not true? >> reagan negotiated with gorbachev. at the same time he built up our armed forces. to say he negotiated with gorbachev without preconditions is silly. >> it's absolute correct. furthermore, obama has also increased pentagon spending. he did a surge in iran. that's got to be true, right? >> not as a part of gdp. reagan wanted to cut government. he wanted to make government smaller. >> he wanted to. did he? >> yes. >> really? the deficit went up tremendousedly under reagan? >> it wasn't a trillion dollars over year like obama's? >> no, that was bush's. >> and reagan won the cold war. what did obama win?
obama hasn't won anything. >> reagan single handedly won the cold war. >> 10% unemployment. >> right. >> i know reagan won the cold war single handedly. >> with a lot of other people. including republicans and democrats. >> let me go to david. david, is it unfair to obama to say he's more conservative than reagan is? have we stated anything wrong on that count? >> i'm going to come closer to frank than you may expect. by his own standards obama wanted to seem more conservative when he ran for president. he gave an interview saying reagan was a transformative president. he said liberals never had someone like this. then he ran for president saying he wasn't going to raise taxes on anybody. in office he's acted more liberal than he's wanted to. reagan, afrom reversals early
on, apart from roth, he was always moving the debate further right. obama ran more conservative than he has been and dealt more reversals as a liberal than reagan as a conservative. it's true reagan had the highest deficit since world war ii. obama had higher deficit. he's apologetic about the reasons. conservatives can say taxes were lower. they can't defend it at every level. democrats can't really defend the way they've governed based on what they ran on. it's fun to compare a couple of these different hews. certainly obama deserves more credit on foreign policy. but he's not a conservative. come on. >> not come on. you make a good point in that reagan pushed the spectrum
further right. but the flip side is the spectrum already moved. obama is not pushing it left. when reagan did it, was it conservative to do amnesty? now they would go ballistic if obama did amnesty for illegal immigrants, and that's it. wouldn't they? >> i would like to see frank's answer to that. this is something conservatives wrestle with. we have better border control than two years ago. there's space to say it's unfair every single thing obama does is to liberty. it was a variation of one composed. he's adapted to a spectrum that has been shifted to right. he's not doing a great job of governing liberal. >> i don't agree with either one of you. i don't think he's being as
liberal as he can at all. they were already calling him a socialist. why not do the public option? frank, do you agree that reagan did amnesty what now conservatives think is unthinkable, and do grow agree he negotiated with terrorists, which now republicans think is unthinkable? didn't he do those, what you would characterize as liberal policy decisions? >> in 1986 the problem of immigration was not nearly what it is in 2010. we had three million illegals in the united states. we now have between 10 and 20 million. the idea of amnesty didn't work in 1986. it's not going to work in 2010. the seminole point to be made here is every opportunity ronald reagan tried to knock down the
size of the federal government. he said in his inaugural address in 1981 government is the problem. it is not the solution. barack obama in just 16 months has governed in the opposite direction. he believes in making government bigger. >> you say he tried to make government smaller. he failed utterly. david said he tried to be liberal. it appears he failed. final question for you, david. if reagan came in and said i'm going to give the drug companies an absolute monopoly. a 12-year patent. nobody can import any drugs. the government can't negotiate with them. that would have never worked. that would have been far too right wing. now obama does it, and nobody blinks. >> i think a lot of people blinked. he's had to talk more conservative. republicans are right. at least in rhetoric, this is a pretty conservative country.
people don't like rapid change. so obama has been more hand strong. but the debate you're trying to start is helpful. it's not helpful when we pretend everything obama does come not from liberals trying to adapt with a pretty central right country we have and are instead trying pull us back to the progressive socialist tradition. in reality obama i think is a pretty liberal guy who is operating within these contours and making a lot of compromises the way that ronald reagan did. but we get completely off track. >> that was fun. i totally disagree with both of you. this is not a center right country. it's a center left country. the problem is our politicians tell us they're going to vote in that direction, and they don't. yes, obama was elected to change the contours. he said u i'm going to bring you change. policies on the record that neither one of you can dispute that are more conservative than
ronald reagan. but it was a fun conversation. david and frank, thank you for both coming on here. >> thank you. >> now let's turn to other stories that caught my eye today. a mother of two in iran set to be stoned to death at any minute. she was convicted of adultery in 2006. she later took back the confession and said she was made to confess after suffering 99 lashes. stay classy, tehran. she will be buried to her neck and stoned to death. a guy would be buried to his waist. this year alone 126 executions in iran were reported. including the hangings of the five political prisoners. we're trying to stop them from bombing you into the stone ages, proving you're already there doesn't help your cause. crack down on meteor request in the wake of the explosive "rolling stone" article on
general stanley mcchrystal. he is saying all interview requests that have international implications to be submitted to pentagon public affairs for review. hey, horsey, oh, you already left the barn. plus, political reports that michael hastings has been offered a book deal. next, russia's accused sexy spy had her eye on royal prize. british intelligence officials now investigating reports that anna chapman was out to meet and seduce princes william and harry. the 28-year-old was a regular at a london nightclub where she hoped to run into parties princes. sending a hotter spy next time may have helped. i know i'm being a little harsh, but there's a lot of hot russians. once a crook always a crook, former ohio congressman has been
disqualified for returning for a bid for congress. they found 1,000 of more than 3,000 signatures on his petition for the fall ballot were invalid. who could have seen that coming? the democrats spent seven year in prison for corruption. the real reason they should have been disqualified is obviously that toupee. want to be glenn beck? today the emotional fox news personality launched his own online academic program which promised to be a unique experience. the classes are availability available to anyone who signs up for his extreme impact website. $6.26 per month. i wonder if you get any gold with that. as we continue this hour, bp beyond promises it can keep. skimming less oil than we thought from the gulf, while
you struggle to control your blood sugar. you exercise and eat right, but your blood sugar may still be high, and you need extra help. ask your doctor about onglyza, a once daily medicine used with diet and exercise to control high blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes. adding onglyza to your current oral medicine may help reduce after meal blood sugar spikes and may help reduce high morning blood sugar. [ male announcer ] onglyza should not be used to treat type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. tell your doctor if you have a history or risk of diabetic ketoacidosis. onglyza has not been studied with insulin. using onglyza with medicines such as sulfonylureas may cause low blood sugar. some symptoms of low blood sugar are shaking, sweating and rapid heartbeat. call your doctor if you have an allergic reaction like rash, hives or swelling of the face, mouth or throat.
ask your doctor if you also take a tzd as swelling in the hands, feet or ankles may worsen. blood tests will check for kidney problems. you may need a lower dose of onglyza if your kidneys are not working well or if you take certain medicines. [ male announcer ] ask your doctor about adding onglyza. extra help. extra control. you may be eligible to pay $10 a month with the onglyza value card program. hey, i'm don shula, to pay $10 a month with and i lost 32 pounds on nutrisystem. and i'm mary anne shula,
and i've lost 23 pounds on nutrisystem. nutrisystem silver for 2010, the weight-loss program designed for older americans to lose weight and feel great again! let's face it, the older you get, the harder it is to lose weight. not anymore, honey. it's easy with nutrisystem. for a limited time, get our best tv offer: four weeks free! that's 112 meals absolutely free. even the shipping is free. i look and feel so much better, and so does coach. i'm back to my playing weight. see how nutrisystem silver can change your life. trust me, you will lose weight. don't miss our best tv offer: order now and you can get an extra four weeks of delicious meals. that's right, you can get an extra 28 breakfasts, 28 lunches, 28 dinners, and 28 desserts, 112 meals free. call or click now. get back in the game.
we're back with busted. up first, bp not letting facts get in the way of a positive spin on cleanup efforts in the gulf. they promised regulators in the event of a spill it would have the capacity to skim or burn nearly 26 million gallons of oil per day. now bp has only gotten rid of 60% of the estimate. the industry as a whole is up in arms for oil to pay for the cleanup efforts. the whole thing is pointless when you see how much they've already subsidized. $225,000 a day that's right in their pockets. once more, the congressional budget office found oil leases and drilling equipment are only taxed at 9%. other businesses are taxed at nearly 25%. this is more proof of the cozy
relationship between big oil and the people who are supposed to be regulating them. how about you pay your taxes first. then we'll give you american subsidies. i know, crazy. a montana congressman blaming firefighters for trees burned in a forest fire. he has filed a lawsuit against the billings fire department saying it breached its duty in a 2008 wildfire that scorched 1,100 acres of land. some included property that his company planned to develop. they're seeking award for damage to their equipment and the loss of trees and ground cover on the property. forget the firefighters that risk their lives fighting blazes every day. it's never been easy being green. an environmental activist faces up to three years in prison
after hanging banners from a washington federal building that said green jobs now and get to work. surely more threatening offenders for the government to spend time pursuing. still ahead, we've seen strange happenings in washington. we'll talk to the x-files lobbyist next. and chris matthews has a debate at the top of the hour only on msnbc. y nut cheerios cereal... ...into a free year's supply? be one of thousands to win free honey nut cheerios for an entire year... its great taste helps make lowering cholesterol a non-challenge. just see specially marked boxes for details.
forget the banks, insurance companies or big oil. did you know there's a ufo lobby? focused on the implications of human contact with the beyond. and these guys have one goal, they want the federal government to spill the beans about any documented knowledge of other life forms. i don't believe that's real video you're seeing. this is the only registered lobbyist on the issue. also with wilber allen, a ufo enthusiast who takes pictures of the sky up to d.c. you had $5 last time. now you're up to $40. who gave you the other $35? >> it's had about $20,000 put into it. the aren't organization spent about $300,000 since 1996 pursuing the issue of the ufo. a growing movement called the disclosure movement. the goal is simple. to get the united states
government to finally acknowledge the e.t. presence. formally to its citizens. we think it's coming soon. >> you have a quote here in the paper that says capital police do a great job, but they are not prepared to deal with extraterrestrial life forms. should they be? >> i believe that they should especially with the history the united states capitol has with ufos. an example starting in july of 1952. july 16th to be exact. a squadron of anomalous objects flew by the its capitol dome. the encounter i photographed was july 16th, 2002, 50 years after the fact. >> that's amazing. >> did they drop off george w. bush while they were here? >> i don't think they did. they may have left george on the
moon. i wasn't sure of the type of activity he was involved with with the extraterrestrials. >> we're not sure either. >> steven, what do you want a government to do? should we be prepared? should we shoot at them? should we be friendly? what should we do? >> definitely don't shoot at them. they sequestered this issue for national security reasons. i think justifiably back then. that truth embargo ran its course since the cold war ended. the basis has evaporated. other nations like france, united kingdom, belgium, ben ma denmark are releasing thousands of ufo files. a man who walked on the moon has been repeatedly going for the cameras and calling for